Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

When I challenged Candie’s about marketing sexy panties to young girls, a rep from Candie’s left a comment on my blog, then sent me a message on Twitter, then sent me an email, all with contradictory or absent contact info and three different age ranges as to who is Candie’s demographic. First it was 16-21 years old. But their own website says 7-16 and Juniors. Then an email response said 18-24 years old. Which is it, Candie’s? The print ads run in teen magazines, arguably read by girls far younger than the 18 years they claim to market to. I don’t know how many 24 year olds wear training bras. Even if their market is 16-21 years old like written by a Candie’s rep on my blog, wouldn’t the promotion on Twitter of Britney Spear’s song “Three”, an ode threesomes, be inappropriate? Especially considering a 16 year old participating in a threesome, aside from being illegal, would have more chances of getting pregnant, not something Candie’s is trying to promote with their Candie’s Foundation against teen pregnancy.
I continued to press for answers, and was directed to Kohl’s. Fine. So I email Kohl’s, and get a corporate sounding response from an Assistant Manager in the Correspondence Department. I was told “the Candie’s brand is meant to be stylish and invoke self-confidence” and the other brands are carried to appeal to different tastes. I found this incredibly stupid for three reasons.

I don’t care if grown women (18 years+) are wearing thongs. I don’t give a hoot. My concern that the thongs were being merchandised to young teen/tween girls was not addressed.

Just because other brands are offered does not negate the wrong-doing of the brand over here. I’m not going to shift focus from the problem. Pump fake.

Candie’s may be considered stylish by some. But ‘invoke self-confidence’? Hypersexualization does not invoke self-confident girls. It creates confused girls and endangered girls.

I was invited to call with further questions. I had a lot of further questions. So I called and spoke with this same Assistant Manager in the Correspondence Department. I got the overall impression that one) Kohl’s should have given me someone higher up to speak to, and two) they seem seriously confused on what builds self-confidence in young women. Most of the same verbage from the email was regurgitated during the phone call. I questioned Kohl’s embracing a brand like Candie’s who uses overtly sexual marketing to capture the attention of young girls. I asked about the proximity of the sexy panties to the training bras and the Juniors section. I asked how this was meant to empower a young girl?
Here’s what I got, from the corporate representative who was handling my escalated customer service complaint and was told she was on the record:

“We offer other choices of brands and styles.”

“Candie’s will continue to be an exclusive brand for us. It does well for us.”

“We implement changes based on customer feedback.”

“I agree with you, and you can always vote with your money.”

“Bottom line: it sells”

Bottom line, it sells. Bottom line, it sells?!? The bottom line is this doesn’t sell with me. Hell no.

Snippity doo da

I am not down with the g-strings for preteens. They're associated with things that preteens don't need to be messing with yet. It just seems creepy. And that last argument is stupid. I'm sure child porn would sell, bottom line - but that doesn't mean it should be sold.

Am I comparing preteen g-strings with porn? Well, they aren't using preteens in the g-string ads or pics, are they. Why might that be, I wonder.....

__________________"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka"Rational arguments don't work on religious people. If they did, there wouldn't be any religious people." - HouseAdditionally to Carlin being funnier than Izzard, I think Dorian is funnier than the Marquis. - Ron Tomkins

Am I comparing preteen g-strings with porn? Well, they aren't using preteens in the g-string ads or pics, are they. Why might that be, I wonder.....

I've heard one reason for wearing G-strings is that other forms of underpants leave telltales of their presence in the seats of girl's (and women's) pants which can cause embarrassment. Teen and tweens, especially females, are very prone to thinking about their external image, and can worry about things like underwear outlines being seen through their jeans. That problem is so for form fitting and not form fitting pants and even skirts. Now, this is just scuttlebutt that I heard in the locker room when I was in college so I don't have a link to give you.

Personally, I don't give a flying turd if the outlines of my granny panties can be seen through my sweat pants. For me, comfort blows fashion out of the water six days of the week and three times on Sunday.

I've heard one reason for wearing G-strings is that other forms of underpants leave telltales of their presence in the seats of girl's (and women's) pants which can cause embarrassment. Teen and tweens, especially females, are very prone to thinking about their external image, and can worry about things like underwear outlines being seen through their jeans. That problem is so for form fitting and not form fitting pants and even skirts. Now, this is just scuttlebutt that I heard in the locker room when I was in college so I don't have a link to give you.

Personally, I don't give a flying turd if the outlines of my granny panties can be seen through my sweat pants. For me, comfort blows fashion out of the water six days of the week and three times on Sunday.

Surely VPL is not a problem if you wear skirt and petticoat I would have thought. However when wearing low-rise jeans, even a thong is often visible. In any case I don't think modern females are quite as embarrassed as previous generations about their body image, given the number of muffin-tops you see these days.

No you're right children need to go through a period of innocence so that they can develope in a normal manner. G-strings are for grown girls. If I had a daughter of any age and if she lived under my roof she wouldn't be wearing a G-string anything.

__________________If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.

I've heard one reason for wearing G-strings is that other forms of underpants leave telltales of their presence in the seats of girl's (and women's) pants which can cause embarrassment. Teen and tweens, especially females, are very prone to thinking about their external image, and can worry about things like underwear outlines being seen through their jeans. That problem is so for form fitting and not form fitting pants and even skirts. Now, this is just scuttlebutt that I heard in the locker room when I was in college so I don't have a link to give you.

Personally, I don't give a flying turd if the outlines of my granny panties can be seen through my sweat pants. For me, comfort blows fashion out of the water six days of the week and three times on Sunday.

It is interesting if that were true, because girls have the exact opposite idea of bras. They can't wait to start wearing one, because everyone else does. Perhaps it is the idea that all their friends with the lax parents are letting them wear thong underwear, so they want to also, and it isn't an external or self image thing.

Originally Posted by DC

what is the issue here?

The discussion seems to be whether or not you would let your 7 year old daughter wear the underwear pictured in the link. Well?

No you're right children need to go through a period of innocence so that they can develope in a normal manner. G-strings are for grown girls. If I had a daughter of any age and if she lived under my roof she wouldn't be wearing a G-string anything.

On the other hand, people are going bananas over what type of underwear children wear these days.

So unless I am missing something important (for example, evidence that this is damaging in some way), this reads like just another case of old fashioned people going "Somebody think of the children!!!" which doesn't really sell with me.

I am not down with the g-strings for preteens. They're associated with things that preteens don't need to be messing with yet. It just seems creepy. And that last argument is stupid. I'm sure child porn would sell, bottom line - but that doesn't mean it should be sold.

Am I comparing preteen g-strings with porn? Well, they aren't using preteens in the g-string ads or pics, are they. Why might that be, I wonder.....

I'm more disturbed you're reading a blog called "pigtailpals" than by anything Kohl's is selling.

__________________"You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc."-lapman describing every twoofer on the internet

On the other hand, people are going bananas over what type of underwear children wear these days.

So unless I am missing something important (for example, evidence that this is damaging in some way), this reads like just another case of old fashioned people going "Somebody think of the children!!!" which doesn't really sell with me.

I agree with you, Sophronius.

They're wearing G-Strings, so what? It's still a pre-teen in underwear. I remember running around without underwear as a pre-teen just because it was comfortable.

Sorry, to me, if someone is outraged by having a pre-teen wear a G-String then the outraged person is guilty of seeing the child in a sexual way, and further, trying to get other people to see children in G-Strings in a sexual way.

So unless I am missing something important (for example, evidence that this is damaging in some way), this reads like just another case of old fashioned people going "Somebody think of the children!!!" which doesn't really sell with me.

I might tend to agree with you but did you read the blog article linked in the OP ?

I really don't like the idea of targeting pre-teens with a a slutty Britney Spears ..

They're wearing G-Strings, so what? It's still a pre-teen in underwear. I remember running around without underwear as a pre-teen just because it was comfortable.

Aye. It seems likely that they are just doing it to be 'cool', or to be provocative. (clearly it works)

Quote:

Sorry, to me, if someone is outraged by having a pre-teen wear a G-String then the outraged person is guilty of seeing the child in a sexual way, and further, trying to get other people to see children in G-Strings in a sexual way.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Rather, that person is guilty of being overly paranoid regarding the safety of their children (I blame parental instinct and fox news)

Ie, the kind of person who thinks that if a grownup talks to a random kid on the street then clearly he must be a pedophile.

Quote:

I might tend to agree with you but did you read the blog article linked in the OP ?

I really don't like the idea of targeting pre-teens with a a slutty Britney Spears ..

Yep, I read some of it, but I'm not really buying it. There's plenty of grownups that think Britney spears with a teddy bear is sexy, so the idea that this is marketed to children lacks substance.

__________________"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

My wife frequently checked my daughter's underwear drawer when she was preteen to teenager, and more than once had less than joyful conversations about:

What is this thong doing in your drawer?
Where did you buy it and why?
What makes you think this is a good idea?

We both had much frustration with the prevalance of hip hugger and low, low, low cut jeans that, IMO, were a deliberate attempt by the fashion industry to force females of any and all ages to have their (where the legs join, in the front) plucked, waxed or shaved. How far below the navel should the top of the jeans descend, I wondered? Some of the styles seemed to think that mid thigh was about right. Finding jeans that weren't trampy was tough.

The Missus wasn't into the tramp look, at all. Nor was I. On more than one occasion, before school, my daughter was sent up to her room to wash her face, and come down with no, or very little, make up on. I did not consider it appropriate for an 8th grader to wear war paint to school.

She eventually clued up later in high school, but someone mentioned the role of parents in this whole deal. Correct.

DR

__________________Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission."Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

They're wearing G-Strings, so what? It's still a pre-teen in underwear. I remember running around without underwear as a pre-teen just because it was comfortable.

Sorry, to me, if someone is outraged by having a pre-teen wear a G-String then the outraged person is guilty of seeing the child in a sexual way, and further, trying to get other people to see children in G-Strings in a sexual way.

What? So when a kid wears sexy underwear, it is my fault for recognizing how creepy that is? I'm sexualizing the kid?

__________________As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

Lets talk about something else, what is an appropriate swimming suit for a say 8 year old girl? Most people would think a bikini is way to sexy for that age, and would instead say that they need one that covers most of their torso. Why is this? There is no practical reason for them to wear different swimming suits than little boys until they start to develop breasts at the least.

So is the idea that little girls need some top more revolting than the idea of a bikini on an 8 year old? Which view sexualizes them more?

I've heard one reason for wearing G-strings is that other forms of underpants leave telltales of their presence in the seats of girl's (and women's) pants which can cause embarrassment. Teen and tweens, especially females, are very prone to thinking about their external image, and can worry about things like underwear outlines being seen through their jeans. That problem is so for form fitting and not form fitting pants and even skirts. Now, this is just scuttlebutt that I heard in the locker room when I was in college so I don't have a link to give you.

Personally, I don't give a flying turd if the outlines of my granny panties can be seen through my sweat pants. For me, comfort blows fashion out of the water six days of the week and three times on Sunday.

This is why I started wearing thongs, had nothing to do with being sexy, that wasn't even on my mind. I just was embarassed at the underwear lines. Also although thongs can still show above jeans, non thongs have much more of a tendency of riding up above the pant line. I started wearing them pretty young (way younger than sex having time) and so did several of my girl friends.

*warning, icky girl talk ahead*

Another great thing about thongs is that they have less surface area and are a tighter fit.When I have my period and am wearing pads or a tampon with panty liner, and wear full sized underwear, it is harder for the pad/panty liner to stay in place and to prevent leakage than with a thong (so long as the thong of course isn't TOO small so that the pad/panty liner can't be easily kept in place).

I would buy them for my pre teen daughter (not that I have one yet), though I would definitely go for something plain and cotton as opposed to anything lacy/racy.

Regardless of the validity of the argument, this writer lost all credibility with me when she asserted there was something inappropriate about Brittany Spears holding a teddy bear. It's the same mentality that wants to ban the video games and comics that I play and read because "only kids play video games and read comic books".
Further, she's from Wisconsin and is trying apply her backwards hicksville values to Southern California. What 7 year old girls are wearing under their jeans are of no concern to anyone! It is called underwear for a reason.

Further, she's from Wisconsin and is trying apply her backwards hicksville values to Southern California.

You might be surprised at how liberal Wisconsin is ... check out the University's battle with the ROTC over homosexuality in uniform ...

Quote:

What 7 year old girls are wearing under their jeans are of no concern to anyone!

Their mothers get a vote on what they wear.

Quote:

It is called underwear for a reason.

Agreed.

For Schrodinger's Cat: thanks for that info on practicality. Was unaware of the utility in that feature of underwear.

DR

__________________Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission."Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

No. If you mean this to imply that I cannot have an informed opinion on the subject, I will counter that most people get decidedly less rational when it comes to the subject of their children, especially the safety thereof. It's all instinct. Hence the reason that "think of the children" is so effective.

Quote:

Do you feel children who have their own money, should be free to buy whatever they want, with no parental control ?

Whatever they want? Far too broad a statement for me to agree with. When it comes to harmless things like their underwear? Well yes.

My wife frequently checked my daughter's underwear drawer when she was preteen to teenager, and more than once had less than joyful conversations about:

What is this thong doing in your drawer?
Where did you buy it and why?
What makes you think this is a good idea?

We both had much frustration with the prevalance of hip hugger and low, low, low cut jeans that, IMO, were a deliberate attempt by the fashion industry to force females of any and all ages to have their (where the legs join, in the front) plucked, waxed or shaved. How far below the navel should the top of the jeans descend, I wondered? Some of the styles seemed to think that mid thigh was about right. Finding jeans that weren't trampy was tough.

The Missus wasn't into the tramp look, at all. Nor was I. On more than one occasion, before school, my daughter was sent up to her room to wash her face, and come down with no, or very little, make up on. I did not consider it appropriate for an 8th grader to wear war paint to school.

She eventually clued up later in high school, but someone mentioned the role of parents in this whole deal. Correct.

DR

It's called the "mons".

__________________"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

Just get to your point. Do you think that allowing children to pick their own underwear is dangerous? Do you fear the corruption of moral values as a result of corporations targeting children with their marketing schemes? Do you resent my notion that parents shouldn't be overly possessive of and/or paranoid about their children? Or are you just having a knee jerk reaction to the words "children" and "lingery" being mentioned in the same sentence?